Government's definition of combat doesn't make sense, say veterans

The Conservative government’s definition of what constitutes combat is not only wrong, but ignores some of the actions of Canadian soldiers in conflicts from the Second World War to Afghanistan, say war veterans and historians.

The Conservative government’s definition of what constitutes combat is not only wrong, but ignores some of the actions of Canadian soldiers in conflicts from the Second World War to Afghanistan, say war veterans and historians.

Dealing with accusations that it misled Parliament about the role of Canadian troops in Iraq, the government has responded with its definition of a combat role.

That, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office, is only when Canadian troops advance and directly seek to attack the enemy.

“A combat role is one in which our troops advance and themselves seek to engage the enemy physically, aggressively, and directly,” explained Jason MacDonald, the prime minister’s spokesman.

The Conservatives maintain that Canadian special forces on the ground calling in airstrikes against extremist Islamist gunmen in northern Iraq are not in combat.

But some war veterans say the government doesn’t know what it’s talking about. Combat can involve advancing, retreating or remaining stationary.

“I spent 15 months in Korea and I never advanced anywhere,” said Les Peate, an Ottawa veteran who served first with the British Army and then later with the Canadian Army. “My job was to stop the other people from advancing.”

Donald “Bud” MacLeod was also on the ground in Korea, advancing at times but spending much of his war service dug in and staring down Chinese and North Korean soldiers. The Canadian Army veteran also called in airstrikes from a spotter plane.

“We had more casualties sitting there on the line than we did in advancing forward,” explained MacLeod. “But all of it was combat.”

Historian Mark Zuehlke says that fighting in the Second World War was a combination of Canadians advancing forward, but at times having to then defend positions that had been seized. In some cases such as the battle of Hong Kong, Canadian soldiers found themselves entirely on the defensive, he added.

In Afghanistan, Canadian soldiers came under attack while manning forward operating bases and not advancing against the enemy. Others died when their vehicles hit roadside bombs.

“Yet none of us would have defined any of that as being non-combat,” said Zuehlke, who has written 11 books on various Canadian battles from the Second World War.

He labeled the government’s definition as “bafflegab.”

“They committed in the House of Commons they would not put these guys into combat in Iraq but they are,” said Zuehlke. “Now they’re trying to dodge that.”

Canadian commandos have, so far, called in 13 airstrikes against forces from the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. On another occasion Canadian snipers “neutralized” enemy forces after they came under mortar and machinegun fire.

Both Liberal leader Justin Trudeau and NDP leader Thomas Mulcair have accused Harper of misleading Parliament when he said the special forces soldiers would only train the Iraqis.

Walter Dorn, a professor at the Royal Military College, said with Canadian special forces being involved in calling in airstrikes, the ground mission in northern Iraq has gone beyond the original training and advising role.

“The government is creating a definition to suit the answer they want to have,” Dorn explained. “We are now engaging in combat beyond self-defence and that is clearly beyond the mandate the government set for itself.”

The actions by Canadian ground troops in calling in airstrikes also runs counter to claims made by Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Tom Lawson. In October, Lawson told CTV that no Canadians would be on the ground directing airstrikes because that would be a combat role.

This Week's Flyers

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.